While I don't know much about GPUs, I think it makes sense. AFAIK the GPU contains quite specialized hardware for certain tasks; unlike the CPU cores which are all identical generic hardware. In which case it indeed makes sense to have more units in total than can be used at once.
To fix your CPU analogy:
Imagine a CPU which has different types of cores. Some cores are efficient integer units, but don't do floating point. Others are very good at floating point, but only have rudimentary integer capabilities. Now floating point heavy applications usually don't do too much integer processing, and vice versa. Now imagine that some physical limitation (heat, power supply, whatever) only allows a certain number of cores to be active at the same time, but die space allows for more. Now if you put exactly as many cores on your CPU as your physical limitations allow, then you have to decide: Either you put many floating point cores on your die, then you'll have excellent floating point performance, but would suck at integer-heavy applications. Or you put many integer cores on it, then your integer performance will be great, but you'll such at FP. Or you use about the same number of integer and floating point units, and then you'll get mediocre performance for both.
However if you put more cores on the die than you can run at the same time, then you can give the FP-heavy app many FP cores and get great FP performance (the lack of fast-integer cores won't hurt the FP-heavy app), and give the integer-heavy application many integer cores and get great integer performance (the lack of fast-FP cores won't hurt the int-heavy application).
Old monitors could be killed by software as well (by just selecting a too high sync frequency). Later monitors added a protection against that. Also, don't some motherboards allow to set the CPU voltage in the BIOS? I guess that means you could fry your CPU from software as well.
I think a simple anti-cheating measure would be to have the function names of the delivered JavaScript different each time it is delivered. Maybe even minor structural changes in your code. After all, who says your JavaScript cannot be generated by a cgi script?
What's so bad about IR? I mean, except for the fact that most companies make remote controls which have to be held in a very narrow angle towards the device. But that's not a problem of IR per se; my first TV had an IR remote control where I wouldn't even have to point it vaguely in the direction of the TV.
No. It just means that any information sent now will be received in the fourth quarter. It doesn't mean that the answer will go backwards in time. I don't know how they managed to slow down the signal that much, though.
Slashdot Mirror
While I don't know much about GPUs, I think it makes sense. AFAIK the GPU contains quite specialized hardware for certain tasks; unlike the CPU cores which are all identical generic hardware. In which case it indeed makes sense to have more units in total than can be used at once.
To fix your CPU analogy:
Imagine a CPU which has different types of cores. Some cores are efficient integer units, but don't do floating point. Others are very good at floating point, but only have rudimentary integer capabilities. Now floating point heavy applications usually don't do too much integer processing, and vice versa. Now imagine that some physical limitation (heat, power supply, whatever) only allows a certain number of cores to be active at the same time, but die space allows for more. Now if you put exactly as many cores on your CPU as your physical limitations allow, then you have to decide: Either you put many floating point cores on your die, then you'll have excellent floating point performance, but would suck at integer-heavy applications. Or you put many integer cores on it, then your integer performance will be great, but you'll such at FP. Or you use about the same number of integer and floating point units, and then you'll get mediocre performance for both.
However if you put more cores on the die than you can run at the same time, then you can give the FP-heavy app many FP cores and get great FP performance (the lack of fast-integer cores won't hurt the FP-heavy app), and give the integer-heavy application many integer cores and get great integer performance (the lack of fast-FP cores won't hurt the int-heavy application).
Simple: If you can download it, it's software.
Note that clock frequency is neither software nor hardware.
So Mac OS X is hardware, too, because it's released by the hardware manufacturer, i.e. Apple?
Old monitors could be killed by software as well (by just selecting a too high sync frequency). Later monitors added a protection against that.
Also, don't some motherboards allow to set the CPU voltage in the BIOS? I guess that means you could fry your CPU from software as well.
So he'll go to his boss and say "An Anonymous Coward can help us, but he isn't cheap. Let's hire him." I wonder what his boss will answer :-)
Now imagine rendering it in 3D!
I think a simple anti-cheating measure would be to have the function names of the delivered JavaScript different each time it is delivered. Maybe even minor structural changes in your code.
After all, who says your JavaScript cannot be generated by a cgi script?
No.
Either: "Why do we need XML when we already have SGML?"
Or: "Why do we need XHTML when we already have HTML?"
Expect to see amazing new exploits using the GPU.
Ok, it's a video, not an image ...
Found, of course, with Google.
Searching directly on YouTube gives two further results.
Especially given that they have a link "coding hell" in the navigation column ...
For some, like ä, ß, €, you can just use the HTML entities (ä, ß, €). More esoteric ones like ॐ just won't work.
What's so bad about IR? I mean, except for the fact that most companies make remote controls which have to be held in a very narrow angle towards the device. But that's not a problem of IR per se; my first TV had an IR remote control where I wouldn't even have to point it vaguely in the direction of the TV.
No. It just means that any information sent now will be received in the fourth quarter. It doesn't mean that the answer will go backwards in time.
I don't know how they managed to slow down the signal that much, though.
Quite the opposite: You want to have as many meters as possible between a child and a pedo.
It matters because it's the first impression someone gets of it.
There's a saying: For the first impression there's no second chance.
In /., /. and ./ are the same. Elsewhere they are different, of course.
Well, I prefer a hyperintelligent shade of the colour blue.
Obvious joke is obvious.
Welcome to tautology club.
I think for scaring people away, that might be just the right quality :-)
There's no reason you cannot insert check digits into the number as well.
"Damn, I can't decode my data. Someone must have changed the web page!"
Or stored on a standard external storage medium like, say, an USB stick?
I hear the patches will be real killers.
. . . but the only app is Duke Nukem Forever.
Ah, that's where North Korea got the plans for the atomic bomb from!